I've released my documentary film on the history of the right to arms, "In Search of the Second Amendment." It stars twelve professors of constitutional law, plus Steve Halbrook, David Kopel, Don Kates, and Clayton Cramer. You can order the DVD here. And here's the Wikipedia page on it. SUPREME COURT SPECIAL: additional orders only $10 each.

CERT GRANTED!

UPDATE: My guess would be another 5-4. Maybe a little better, if only because the 4 the last time were the liberal wing, and they're going to be hard put to argue against incorporation. On the other hand, they managed to argue against individual right the last time, so mental gymnastics are no problem to them.

Briefing -- I think Alan Gura has 45 days to brief, taking it to mid-November, then Chicago has 30, taking it to mid-Dec., then Alan gets a reply, taking it into January. Amici file 5-7 days after the party they support. Oral argument probably February or March.

Well since it was the SC that screwed everything up back in 1833, they should fix it. But then the SC, being subordinate to the Constitution does not have the authority to interpret (define) the Constitution, just as one does not have the authority to define one's superior. The Creator is always superior to the created.

We have been living under the lie of the authority of the SC to "interpret" the Constitution. It is time to wake up, read the Constitution, use logic and reason, and finally figure out that everyone was brainwashed into believing the Court has such authority, authority that is gratned no where in the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment always applied to ALL governments. The individual is sovereign, that sovereignty being endowed on the individual by the Creator. The individual grants some authority to government, be it local, state, or federal but retains all that is not expressly granted. We the People are in charge; We the People are the Creator. The Constitution is our creation and only We the People have the authority to define the Constitution. Not a single word in the Constitution transfers that authority from We the People to the government. And the Constitution is the Creator of our government, placing the governmetn two levels below the sovereignty of the People.

Does this matter? Yes, it is paramount in getting government back on track.

I expect there is more before this gets decided. I had heard they want to merge Maloney and Chicago cases.

Scotus wants to settle incorporation. But the question of what constitute arms also needs clarification. Maloney is a case of a state banning arms.

The states have been free to ban or regulate arms for over 200 plus years. This needs to stop.

Even tasers are banned on the county level. Armored vests used to be banned also in MD.

The difference in armament between cops and citizens needs to be leveled. Citizens should be able to be as well armed as the military since the military is supposed to be subservient to the citizens will.

The superiority of the military is the training and disciple and ability to mass and move fast. That is how the military is superior to a citizen militia.

I don't want a definition of what is allowable to considered arms since that can change over time.

So, they took Alan Gura over the NRA. Any thoughts on why? Was it a better case for them to decide upon incorporation? Or was it a matter of politics? Deciding a case with the NRA could be a huge political statement as opposed to deciding a case with Gura.

There will never be parity between the citizens and their military ... There will always be more armed citizenry by a huge margin. What are there, about 100 million armed today? Nothing can overcome that disparity, unless you disarm the citizens. And surely government wants to do that.

I would like to hear more what you think is going on, David, put it in terms us lay-people can understand please.

It is truely exciting times we live in. On one hand we have an overreaching government that is grasping to take control of every aspect of our lives, and on the other hand, in spite of what the current administration wants, we have the SCOTUS (hopefully, seemingly) ready to tip the scales in the other direction and restore what I believe is the final check and balance to our system.

Your forgeting that those on the Left believe in a "living" constitution. So it doesn't really matter what the constitution says, they just need to invent a line of reasoning, no matter how weak, to rationalize what they think it should be. The Heller decision displayed this perfectly.

A Constitutionally unenumerated right to privacy exists and has Supreme Court recognition in Lawrence v. Texas and Griswold v. Connecticut, and its emanations and penumbras were strong enough to produce Roe v. Wade. So consensual sex acts are protected thoroughly enough under Supreme Court precedent that a private individual can overcome the power of the state to choose a partner of the same sex, use prophylaxis to prevent pregnancy or disease, and if pregnancy ensues can abort the fetus. No state or local law can interfere with these decisions. Privacy is not an incorporated right based on the 14th Amendment, nor is it listed in the Bill of Rights. It is an unenumerated right.

A Constitutionally enumerated right to bear arms is recognized in Heller v. DC as an individual right guaranteed against federal infringement, in order to allow individual self defense in the home against violent attack. Thus bearing arms is an enumerated right, serving at least the purposes of self defense and militia use.

No Supreme Court can rationalize the recognition of self protection on the basis of privacy in consensual sexual and individual reproductive matters and then deny the right of self protection using arms against non-consensual violent acts. It would stretch logic to the breaking point to see someone try..

Arguments of "proportionality of force" in self defense would fail, since there is no such proportionality required in consensual sex acts or abortion. Arguments of militia use, or collective rights, would fail, since there is no such group or collective restricion on the unenumerated right of privacy regarding self protection in sex acts and abortions.

Abortion up to birth is now allowed, and viability of the fetus has failed as a means to limit abortion, based on the privacy rights of the mother. So how could one argue that the means of self defense depends upon the rights of the attacker, rather than the rights of the defender?

Gura is a genius and his program of incremental judicial decisions supporting the Second Amendment will succeed. There is simply no way for it to fail, given the precedents in Supreme Court decision making that even a non-lawyer like myself can see.